News Nokia X, X+ and XL are company's first Android phones

New low-end phones will use Microsoft and Nokia cloud features but run Android apps.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/02/24/nokia-x-x-and-xl-are-first-android-phones/1

 

These will have to be very special to avoid tanking (at least in the first world).

 

I don't know about that. Many people own Android phones because they are cheap, but feel overwhelmed by its features. A simple, clean Android setup may be just what appeals to them.

 

Most people dont care what type of OS there phone has.

They have 2 maybe 3 requirements.

Cheap, Facebook, ease of use. Outside of that most could not give a care for the OS.

If its cheaper or as cheap than a MotoG and meets the simple requirements then it could sell well at what nokia does best. Selling cheap stuff to people on a budget.

Nokia X is 89 Euro as launch price. Guess we will see it in Uk for around £99. MotoG goes for between £89 to £119 depending on who sells it to you.

 

The problem for these handsets is that the Moto G redefined the budget smartphone market by being essentially a premium handset, much as the Nexus handsets redefined the mid-tier by competing with the range toppers.

Unless they come in substantially cheaper with similar specs (the latter of which they clearly won't), they will not stack up well against the Motorola offering.

 

Yep, I've just bought a Moto G and I'd agree. I only got it yesterday, so I admit the novelty factor hasn't dissipated yet, but it looks, feels and performs like a much more expensive phone.

Perhaps the rise of the very capable budget phone will force the likes of Samsung et al to bring down their handset costs.

 

They'll stack up perfectly well in the eyes of your average consumer who knows less-than-nothing-about-anything....people buy what the chump at <insert-retail-outlet-here> tells them to, if he/she tells them it's <insert-adjective-here>

 

I think that you're both right. The Nokia X is just a simple, cheap, fun mobile, does the job, touches the spot. The Moto G is spot on the price-quality balance, giving you the sense of a premium product at a bargain price. if I went Android it's the one I'd buy. There's little between them; both are well-designed but aiming at different markets. I think fun, cheap simplicity will be the former's attraction, while having a bargain full Android phone will be the latter's.

 

It would seem Nokia has been beaten on the price front, Mozilla and Spreadtrum announced a $25 smart phone. IDK how Mozilla OS stands up against Android but at $25 would anyone care ?

 

as I said in another thread - they are removing all the google branded apps so google wont get a cut off any app sales. expect it to be as locked down and closed wall as the kindle fire hd is

 

It might be android but doesn't have the play store. Also Moto G just about kills it. Specs are so gimped I'll be surprised if it isn't a complete failure.

 

A Microsoft phone running Android. How times have changed!

 

This has great fail written all over it - Android phones with less than 1 GB of RAM and really modest dual core in 2014 when even Moto G and various Chinese phones come with 1 GB and quad core CPU. The Likes of Lenovo etc. will trash these Nokia phones with more features (dual SIM support anyone ?). If customers really wanted something along these lines they woudl have gone for LG's L3, L5, L7 and L9 lineup.

While I would rather see a really fast dual core CPU in place of slower quad cores, I do believe that 1 GB is bare minimum for Android today (based on how my Nexus 5 eats the RAM even though I have ZERO applications running in the background - I got used to closing them immediately). 512/768 may be enouigh for Windows Phone, but not for Android.